Thats' It, I've had It!!
This is something that has to be said. I hope I have the skill to say it correctly. I want to address patriotism and "support our troops" in combat overseas. First I have to say I HATE this war in Iraq. I HATE the way the chickenhawks and neocons in this administration used the terrorist attacks of September eleventh 2001 as an excuse to have a war they WANTED to have. I HATE the way the made being "Pro War" a litmus test of patriotism and support for America’s so-called "War on terrorism" while at the same time making being "Anti War" a measure of your support for the terrorists, making you a traitor? EXCUSE ME? NO sane person is pro war. None. EVER. War is a violent, destructive, murderous act that should only be reserved for the last resort. Not the first choice. But then it got worse. Now they want to paint you as a traitor if you question their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They say "you are not supporting our troops in the field". That's criminal. So I'm going to try to say this clearly and honestly. It’s not the soldier's fault. I HATE the war. I honor the soldiers. They are professionals, doing the best job they can in a bad situation. I do NOT support the war. I support the troops. Is that so hard to understand? Bush says we're over in Iraq defending freedom. One of those freedoms is to dissent. Sorry Bush, but I dissent. Your war is a personal vendetta, a criminal act that you should be tried for, from a cell next to Milosevich. I think we need to bring the troops home and get out of Iraq immediately. And I think if we were to be honest, we would demand that Israel eliminate its weapons of mass destruction along with every other country in the region. But if you think you can somehow say I am not a patriot, that I don't support our troops in the field, I'm sorry, you are clearly lying AGAIN.
Enough Already!!
Thirty two years ago John Kerry was in Vietnam and George Bush wasn't. So WHAT? Jeez, you'd think this was the most important issue in the presidential campaign. Let me clarify. It is NOT. It is not important, and it is not an issue. This is the most important American election since 1860. This time, it's not the survival of the Union that is at stake, but the core definition of what it means to be an American. Setting aside the disastrous war in Iraq, the failed war against the terrorist organizations that attacked us, the record deficit, the lost jobs, the stagnant economy and the horrendous corporate fraud that all occurred on Bush's watch, there is a dramatically bigger issue. America was once a shining city upon the hill, people all around the world looked up to us, our values and our restraint in the use of power. Now we are almost universally hated, loathed, and most distressing of all, feared. As the single remaining military superpower, it is important for the US to use it's power judiciously, and only when there is clear cause and that cause is just. But with our unjust, "preemptive" wars and our behavior towards those caught up in the jaws of our power, not just the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, but the concentration camp at Guantanimo Bay, and our insistence in denying our powerless captives even the smallest measure of due process and protection, we have lost all moral authority. We can no longer chastise China or Indonesia on human rights. Indeed, we cannot even question the outrageous behaviors of that KGB thug Vladimir Putin in Chechnya and the southern Caucasus for fear that he will merely point the finger back at us. So it's seven weeks until the election decides what it is to be American, and how the world will perceive us for the next generation, and where is the substantive discussion of the monumental issues? Nope, we continue to argue about the candidate's service thirty years ago. Sure, if either or both lied, you could say it goes to character, but still it would go to their character thirty years ago. Anybody who knows me knows I am no supporter of Bush, but the fact that he may have used his family's influence to avoid service in Vietnam does not affect my opinion of him one bit. In fact, it goes to show that he's smarter than I thought he was. This argument that military service or lack thereof a generation ago somehow qualifies someone to defend our country as commander in chief is illogical and specious. If the president's role in national defense was to pick up a rifle and engage the enemy, well maybe some combat history would matter. But let's remember two things. One, the job of president of the United States is unlike any other job in the world, and there is really no personal history that can adequately prepare one for it. And two, any and every American would do their level best to defend us. You would, I would, Bush would, Kerry would. The question you have to ask is how they would go about it, and how closely those methods mesh with your personal beliefs. Then you can make a choice on the National Defense question and move on to the much more critical issues of the economy, health care, education and social programs that are REALLY what this election, and this campaign, should be about.
